CHAPTER TWO: TOURISM DEVELOPMENT - Angelfire

50 Pages·2001·0.23 MB·English

K. Andriotis Chapter Two: Tourism Development
CHAPTER TWO:
TOURISM DEVELOPMENT

2.0 INTRODUCTION

Development by its nature is a process of change and may be explained in a
variety of ways. Harrison (1992) and Woodcock and France (1994) suggest that
traditional development approaches could prove a useful framework for the
explanation of tourism development patterns and processes. In the literature,
approaches to development range from the laissez-faire (simply doing nothing) to
diffusionism, dependency and sustainability, although no approach has ever
attained absolute dominance. In addition, various dichotomous alternatives have
been proposed for the implementation of the above approaches, such as large
versus small, mass versus alternative, exogenous versus endogenous and capital
versus labour-intensive.

There are two type of models that contribute to the better understanding of
development: the explanatory and the descriptive. Explanatory models (e.g.
diffusionist) refer to the factors (preconditions) that cause development/growth. In
tourism, there are two pre-conditions of development, namely the ‘necessary’ and
the ‘sufficient’ (Rostow, 1990; Auty, 1995). ‘Necessary’ pre-conditions include
various factors that pull people to different destinations, very often nice
landscapes and archaeological sightseeing. However, although there are many
destinations that have some necessary pre-conditions, they never move from the
potential of development to actually developing, because they lack the ‘sufficient’
preconditions, i.e. somebody’s will to develop the tourism industry, e.g.
investments in infrastructure and accommodation.

Descriptive models (e.g. life cycle explanations, physical models and enclave
versus spread out developments) examine tourism from the angle of what appears
on the ground, e.g. large hotels, facilities etc. The majority of tourism
development research has been concentrated on descriptive explanations, mainly
- 11 -
K. Andriotis Chapter Two: Tourism Development
life cycle models (Butler, 1980; Cooper, 1990; Martin and Uysal, 1990; Foster
and Murphy, 1991; Getz, 1992; Ioannides, 1992; di Benedetto and Bojanic, 1993;
Johnson and Snepenger, 1993; McElroy et al., 1993; Bianchi, 1994; Agarwal,
1997; Douglas, 1997; Goncalves and Aguas, 1997; Tooman, 1997; Oppermann,
1998; Priestley and Mundet, 1998; Russell and Faulkner, 1998; Knowles and
Curtis, 1999). Similarly, much research has been conducted emphasising the
outcomes of development - economic, socio-cultural and environmental
(Mathieson and Wall, 1982; Liu and Var, 1983; Haukeland, 1984; Dogan, 1989;
Ap, 1992; Tsartas, 1992; Uysal, 1992; Wheat, 1993; Archer and Cooper, 1998;
Buhalis and Fletcher, 1995; Haralambopoulos and Pizam, 1996; Lindberg and
Johnson, 1997; Korca, 1998; Brunt and Courtney, 1999; Gamage and King,
1999).

The aim of this chapter is to add to past research by identifying the ways in which
tourism develops through the investigation of the development process
components (Figure 2.1). It does this in five sections covering: the nature of
development; the approaches to development; how these approaches are
implemented; and the outputs and outcomes of the development process.

Figure 2.1: The components of the tourism development process

TOURISM DEV ELOPMENT

NATURE APPROACHES IMPLEMENTATION OUTPUTS OUTCOMES

(Process of change) • Laissez-Faire • Capital vs. Labour • Life cycle • Economic
• Diffusionism • Endogenous vs. • Physical patterns • Environmental
• Dependency Exogenous • Enclave vs. Spread • Social

• Sustainable • Small vs. Large
• Alternative vs. Mass

Source: Author.

2.1 THE NATURE OF DEVELOPMENT

The concept of development has been under discussion for many years and has
been given numerous interpretations. Friedmann (1980, p.4) and Oppermann and
- 12 -
K. Andriotis Chapter Two: Tourism Development
Chon (1997) observe development as one of the ‘more slippery terms in our
tongue’ and suggests development as ‘an evolutionary process’ with ‘positive
connotations’. In particular, Friedmann (1980) states:

Development is always of something, a human being, a society, a notion, an
economy, a skill ... It is often associated with words, such as under or over or
balanced: too little, too much, or just right ... which suggests that development has a
structure, and that the speaker has some idea about how this structure ought to be
developed. We also tend to think of development as a process of change or as a
complex of such processes which is in some degree lawful or at least sufficiently
regular so that we can make intelligent statements about it (p.4).

Ingham (1993) views development in a similar manner to Friedman by attributing
to development a dual nature, consisting of both a process and a goal. Todaro
(1994) sets three goals of development: human survival needs (mainly food and
shelter), standards of living (such as education and health), and human rights
(such as social justice and political sovereignty).

Despite pervasive tourism growth over the last decades and the use of tourism by
many countries and islands as a development strategy, development literature has
almost neglected tourism as a development approach (Apostolopoulos, 1994;
Gunn, 1994; Sinclair, 1998). However, development through tourism is a strategy
utilised by governments to improve residents’ welfare through income and
employment generation, and to help a destination to move from a position of
‘poverty’ or ‘under-development’ to a position of ‘wealth’ or ‘more-
development’.

Rostow (1960) identifies a natural path to economic growth (process) which all
societies or nations have to follow if they want to become modern. This path
includes five stages beginning with the traditional society and progressing through
the stages of the preconditions for take-off, the take-off, and the drive to maturity,
before reaching the final stage of high mass consumption. Rostow (1960)
recognised that for a quicker and better development of a country a major role is
played by a free and dynamic private sector in partnership with an efficient public
- 13 -
K. Andriotis Chapter Two: Tourism Development
sector. However, he identified the danger of detouring, when some countries
depart from capitalist development to the deviant route of socialism-communism.

Although Rostow’s model does not address tourism growth, in particular, but
general economic growth from any type of activity, it is a useful tool to explain
economic growth in tourism. Tourism can offer to a destination a natural path to
economic growth through various stages, ranging from traditional non-tourism
where no tourists visit the destination, to the precondition to take off where
explorers and drifters make their appearance, to maturity where the destination is
visited by mass individual tourists, to the final stage of mass consumption where
the destination is visited by mass organised tourists. From this it is evident that
Rostow set the roots for most of the models that have attempted to explain tourism
evolution. Therefore, many authors have incorporated into their evolutionary
models many of Rostow’s stages, although using tourism-specific terminology.

2.2 APPROACHES TO DEVELOPMENT

Since tourism is a process of change it is imperative to investigate the following
approaches to change introduced by development scholars.

2.2.1 Laissez-faire

The tradition of ‘laissez faire’ suggests that with minimum interference by
government and the efficient operations of individual entrepreneurs the
production and exchange of goods can be stimulated and a consequent rise in
the general standards of living attained. However, such freedom cannot ensure
basic social values, such as equitable income distribution. Instead, it permits the
accumulation of vast wealth and powerful vested interests leading to the poverty
of a major part of the society. In tourism the laissez-faire approach should be
avoided because it can result in deleterious effects due to the remarkable
consequences of uncontrolled tourism development on the survival of
environmental and cultural resources and the danger of destinations losing their
authenticity in the drive for quick and easy profit.
- 14 -
K. Andriotis Chapter Two: Tourism Development
2.2.2 The diffusionist paradigm

Diffusion is a process where economic growth spreads-out from one location to a
number of others (Sarre, 1977; Rostow, 1990; Auty, 1995). This spreading-out
process can be better implemented through development. “Development is
inevitable, (it) occurs in development stages, and is diffused from the
development core towards peripheral areas” (Oppermann and Chon, 1997, p.36).
A prerequisite of diffusion is the process of innovation, which does not have to be
something new, but may exist in other areas, and it can refer to tangible objects,
like machines, or less tangible phenomena, like tourism (Sarre, 1977; Potter et al.,
1999).

Diffusion in tourism has two sides. Firstly, the demand side is concerned with
how tourists are informed about the destination and decide to visit it. Usually the
tourist product is not supplied directly to the public but intermediates control its
distribution. As a result, the supply side is concerned with the ways that a
destination develops the tourism industry. Supply side involves the institutions,
e.g. governmental or exogenous agencies that make decisions. In every destination
there are some individuals or institutions that decide first to produce tourist
facilities. Once a small number of producers create some facilities that are
successful in attracting tourists, more individuals decide to adopt the innovation,
usually located near existing producers. Hägerstand (1967) calls this the
neighbourhood effect on innovations. This diffusion of innovation results in social
change by which alteration occurs in the structure and function of the social
system, by borrowing or adopting cultural traits of other countries (Sethna, 1980;
Rogers, 1995).

Miossec (1977) developed a diffusionist model of tourism space, depicting the
structural evolution of a destination through time and space and noted changes in
the provision of resort and transport facilities and subsequent behavioural and
attitudinal changes amongst tourists, decision-makers and the host population. He
argued (Figure 2.2) that diffusion happens in five phases (0, 1, 2, 3 and 4) from
isolation, with no development, to the creation of a pioneer resort together with
- 15 -
K. Andriotis Chapter Two: Tourism Development
the necessary transportation means for the accessibility of the resort, to a
multiplication of resorts and further transportation links, and to saturation through
an even distribution of resorts across the country. Through these phases changes
in local attitudes occur that may lead to the complete acceptance of tourism, the
adoption of planning controls or even the rejection of tourism (Pearce, 1989).

Figure 2.2: Tourism space dynamics
Source: Miossec (1977).

Miossec suggested that over-development can result in decline, setting so limits
for the degree of development that a resort or a country can sustain. However,
Miossec may be criticised in that he failed to recognise that tourism cannot
develop in an ‘empty space’ but usually develops “within an existing socio-
economic structure where some form of urban hierarchy and some transport
networks are already found” (Pearce, 1989, p.18).

The process of diffusion from the development core to the periphery can be easily
materialised through tourism, due to the increasing demand of modern tourists for
- 16 -
K. Andriotis Chapter Two: Tourism Development
new destinations. The expansion of the tourism industry implies greater
interaction of the ‘trickle-down effects’ and the possibility of regional disparity
adjustment. Tourism can result in a positive influence on tourist receiving
destinations with benefits to individual welfare and collectively in socio-economic
development. Since tourism expenditure results in linkages to other economic
sectors, e.g. agriculture, handicrafts, and building, high multiplier effects, and
employment creation for locals, international tourism has been seen by
governments of peripheral regions as an instrument for their economic
development, as emphasised by Christaller (1964) and Potter et al. (1999).

Nevertheless, sometimes the results of the diffusion process are different. In some
nations diffusion, through tourism, has not led to significant economic
development and improvement in individual welfare, but has increased regional
inequalities, disparities between socio-economic classes and elitist entrenchment.
According to Brown (1981):

Within third world nations elitist entrenchment prevails and there are still enormous
disparities between social and economic classes, as well as among regions, in their
level of social welfare and economic development (p.229).

As a result, diffusion does not immediately appear over the entire country or
island. There are areas where diffusion emerges first, in others later, and in some
never. However, what is the reason for this? As Friedmann (1973) and Potter et al.
(1999) asserted, usually the core dominates the periphery in economic, political
and innovative functions, and therefore diffusion in the core usually emerges first.
On the other hand, the periphery is not a homogenous entity, and therefore, parts
of it differ in their potential for development. As Brown (1981) suggested:

Periphery areas may be upward transitional because they are located in proximity to
development impulses emanating from the core, or because they are located between
two core cities and thus constitute a development corridor. Alternatively, there are
periphery areas that are downward transitional because they are located far from the
centres of economic activity, or because their social norms are exceptional
traditional (p.253).

- 17 -
K. Andriotis Chapter Two: Tourism Development
This has been illustrated by many authors (e.g. Britton, 1982; Pearce, 1987;
Oppermann, 1993) who propose that tourist resorts are usually created in the
vicinity of international airports. Since most of the time international airports are
frequently close to the capital, resorts are located in these areas. For example, in
Dominica, half of all accommodation establishments are in the capital Rousseau
(Weaver, 1991). Oppermann (1993) asserted that the most successful way to
direct tourists to other regions is the opening of a new airport. Since the sea and
sand attract most tourists, airports are constructed frequently along the coast.

Developing nations and islands consist of a declining ‘traditional’ sector, and a
growing ‘modern’ sector. The traditional sector comprises an indigenous culture
and is characterised by a sub-culture of peasantry or social norms oriented
towards maintaining the status quo (Brown, 1981, p.252; Potter et al, 1999). On
the other hand, the modern sector incorporates the influence of foreign, primarily
developed world, economic practices and social norms (Brown, 1981; Potter et al,
1999). Through the input of new ideologies, technologies and expertise from
external to the region agents, there is a change in the structure of the economy and
the society of underdeveloped regions. As Harrison (1992) remarked:

Economically, there is a shift from agriculture to industry (and from rural to urban),
and a central role for money and the money market. Socially, the influence of the
family and other collectivities declines, institutions become more differentiated, and
a pivotal role is played by ‘modernising’ elites and other ‘change agents’ in
introducing modern values and institutions, often in the face of hostile or resistant
tradition... If investment capital, entrepreneur skills, technological knowledge and
values necessary for modernity are absent from societies which are ‘developing’,
they can be diffused from outside, perhaps as some form of aid, provided there are
sufficient, and sufficiently powerful, indigenous change agents to act as catalysts and
carry the rest of society with them, albeit unwillingly (p.9).

Developing societies have to pass through a series of development stages similar
to those experienced by many western countries (Barnett, 1988; Harrison, 1988;
Loeb and Paredes, 1991; Wall, 1997). Development may be better achieved along
Western lines and through the movement from the ‘traditional’ agricultural sector
into a modern sector (Clancy, 1999). Consequently, the diffusionist paradigm
- 18 -
K. Andriotis Chapter Two: Tourism Development
proposes that the only way to achieve development is through the elimination of
the ‘under-development’ characteristics and the acquisition of characteristics
already adopted by the more-developed regions (Browett, 1980; Oppermann and
Chon, 1997). However, Wall (1997) criticised the process of modernisation
because:

It involves high levels of abstraction with limited discussion of the role of local
involvement, that it suggests a unidirectional path which all must follow in order to
develop, and that it smacks of western ethnocentrism as revealed in the First- and
Third-World labels ascribed to parts of the globe. It has little to say about the
importance of traditional values, and perhaps implies that the maintenance of
tradition and modernisation may not be compatible goals (p.36).

2.2.3 The dependency theory

The diffusion of development from Western countries to underdeveloped
peripheral regions brings changes in the form of modernisation of the economic
structure, through foreign investments and control, as well as reinforcement of
elites as agents of change. Therefore, the diffusionist paradigm was criticised
because it did not relate to those structural conditions which prevail in
‘contemporary under-developed regions’ (Browett, 1980; Oppermann and Chon,
1997). As a result, according to several researchers (Briton, 1982; Erisman, 1983;
Wilkinson, 1987; Lea, 1988; Briton, 1989; Auty, 1995; Milne, 1997; Wilkinson,
1997a), forms of ‘dependent development’ have emerged in many developing
countries.

According to the notion of dependent development, while economic growth has
occurred in some countries of the periphery, such development has produced
undesirable features that distinguished it from the capitalist development in the
core (Hunt, 1989; Potter et al., 1999). The absence of sufficient capital, and
subsequent low investment and productivity, result in the periphery being trapped
in a vicious circle of poverty (Mydral, 1957; Potter et al., 1999), with peripheral
tourism controlled and exploited by ‘the industrial core regions’ (Keller, 1987;
Potter et al. (1999). As a result, tourism evolution in many island destinations
- 19 -
K. Andriotis Chapter Two: Tourism Development
matches patterns of neo-colonialism and economic dependency, where ‘wealthy
metropolitan Western societies’ overwhelmingly dominate the travel business of
under-developed destinations by exploiting their resources through developing
‘tourism enclaves’, as Matthews (1977) and Wilkinson (1987) have reported
regarding the Caribbean islands.

Britton (1982) illustrated this situation in his enclave model of tourism in
developing countries (Figure 2.3). He indicated that tourism in developing
countries is spatially concentrated and organised in the metropolitan economies,
usually a capital city, where the “headquarters of metropolitan tourism
corporations and associated non-tourism companies are located” (Britton, 1982,
p.341). Since metropolitan enterprises are actually located within the principal
tourist markets they have direct contact with tourists, they dominate major facets
of the industry, such as technology, marketing, product pricing and design, and
thus, they control the link in the tourist flow chain (IUOTO, 1976; Britton, 1989;
Wilkinson, 1997b). Foreign headquarters of the tourism-generating countries
organise the package tour (transportation, accommodation and excursions) and
therefore there is a “capacity of the dominant tourism sectors to control tourist
expenditures through the control of tourist movements, to the relative exclusion of
the petty producer sectors” (Britton, 1982, p.346). The only uncontrolled facet by
foreign headquarters is some of the consumption patterns of tourists during their
residence, e.g. items they purchase, entertainment, and other services. Although
Britton (1982) developed his model almost twenty years ago, his notions are still
appropriate.

- 20 -